Now that's a reasoned and reasonable response. I think it's actually very persuasive. It demands I give it a long and unbiased consideration.
The part that persuades is the suggestion about how and where best to concentrate one's effort.
Unlike the OP, I am retired, and my income is not tied to a geographic area. On the other side of the coin, the greatest portion of my personal wealth (wealth, right...!) is tied up in my residence, which is nearing the end stage of a long and costly renovation.
Ethics, morality, and philosophy are key drivers, but not the only ones. The financial outlook for real estate here essentially dictates that I will end up dead of old age before our investments (my wife's figure prominently as well) could show profit. It may appear crass to bring economics to the discussion, but such issues cannot be ignored.
I keep vacationing in the SE, if for no better reason than to find some respite from the oppressive anti gun-owner atmosphere here in NY. I like the places I've seen, and would certainly enjoy living there. After 16 years in a rural setting, contrasting with a former highly urban one, I have learned the value of reticence and necessary agreement with my neighbors. Doing so has changed me, and I have adopted their views, in large part, mainly because they are good ones.
Perhaps what my detractors miss is the fact that NY is not a homogeneous setting, and that our rural elements are very much in disagreement with the State rulers who evoke a dominantly urban policy for all, who treat the rural portions as increasingly annoying redheaded stepchildren needing to be curbed for their own good. While I would not be in favor of armed resistance, many of my neighbors are outspoken and feel quite differently about that. It may be this distinction that prompts me to resist a cut and run policy.
Leaving would be a whole lot easier than staying, regardless of the economics. I stay because I have friends who deserve my support.
As for the NE being so problematic during the American Revolution, I offer another viewpoint from (taken from the discussion of
Turn) on this very site:
What I am finding interesting is the portrayal of Rogers. We all know him as the greatest hero of the Infantry.... Rogers rules of Ranging and all that. But his role in the Revolutionary war (and his loyalties... and his problems with debt, etc.) are not as well known. In his famous Northwest Passage, Kenneth Roberts hinted as to Roberts latter days in debtors prison in England. But didn't bring up his contributions to the British/Loyalist cause.
My thesis advisor, actually, is currently working on a book about Rogers. I suspect it will be a lot more complex than one might first think and that there will be a lot of people at Ft. Benning who will be surprised at the Rogers of the Revolutionary War. And maybe not pleased.
One of the things that is interesting about Turn is how it shows the complexity of life in Colonial/revolutionary North America where the population was genuinely split between loyalty to the Crown, Rebellion, and (frankly) apathy. Sentiment for rebellion, especially in the South, was not as widespread as it was, for example, in New England. Which is why Burgoyne's strategy of cutting off New England, had it worked, was a very viable plan. And a lot of people (much as with politics today) were either apathetic or were waiting to see which way the wind blew. The idea that there was universal support among colonists for rebellion is, frankly, Disneyesque.
For another excellent read on the Revolutionary War (this time from the British perspective)... Matthew Spring's "With Zeal and Bayonets Only" is a superb book. One of our reading list for Masters. Not a hard read and gives a lot of British and Loyalist perspective and delves into the details of the British soldier.
Cheers,
Sirhr
Greg
